Harry Reid has always baffled me.

[unblock]

1. i don't think it was him, it was the holdouts, who kept him back.

generally speaking, a majority leader can only flex muscles if there's confidence that enough votes can be garnered.

reid has made many noises over several years about filibuster reform, and knew he didn't quite have the votes. so imho, reid was doing the best he could with a losing hand. to continue the poker analogy, he knew he was behind but made a small bluff to win a small pot, knowing he would have to fold if republicans raised him.

finally he drew a good hand, and made a solid bet to win a sizeable pot. still, though, he didn't have the nuts -- i'm quite certain that the holdouts agreed only to the limited filibuster reform on non-supreme court nominees that we got, otherwise reid would have gone further.

my guess is that reid had been working the holdouts on this issue for years, and it finally paid off.